Grammar Challenge... Are you up to the task?

[meg_evonne]

The sentence is from "Let It Bleed" by Ian Rankin.

I've been delving into my Elements of Style and elsewhere. The author is Scottish so the Chicago Manual probably won't match, but this sentence just--bugs me. It was a relief to see your varied opinions as well.

Here is the way it is in the book:

"He saw himself as a "man manager," and was a public voice in the drive to reform Scotland's penal system: brighter, better-equipped halls; a strong emphasis on vocational training education and counseling; no more overcrowding, no more brutality." 

On the first comma, Elements of Style says, "Place a comma before a conjunction introducing an independent clause." Since there isn't a specific subject (He for example) before "was a..." then there shouldn't be one, right?

I'm on-board with the use of the colon as the rule reads, "Use a colon after an independent clause to introduce a list of particulars, an appositive, an amplification, or an illustrative quotation."

Then Elements of Style says, "Do not join independent clauses with a comma. If two or more clauses grammatically complete and not joined by a conjunction are to form a single compound sentence, the proper mark of punctuation is a semicolon."  None of the items after the colon are true independent clauses, yet there they are--two semicolons. Yet, in this sentence, it rings true to me.
 
This is the 'art' part of grammar, right? I can see a 'breaking of the rule' to add emphasis and, perhaps, to be clear due to the length of the individual items in the list, or as a "pause in the thought process" per Shecky's comments. Yet, it makes me pull my hair out...

[Shecky]

I'd do it like this, except maybe a comma after education and a semicolon after counseling.

1) I'm not a fan of Oxford commas in general, save in cases where it would genuinely aid comprehension (and most of those cases can be avoided with a modicum of rewording or syntax shift).
2) A sentence that requires both a colon and a semicolon (or, in general, any combination of two or more of both/either of those) is too long and should be reworked.

*puts away grammar swastika*

[Starbeam]

1) I'm not a fan of Oxford commas in general, save in cases where it would genuinely aid comprehension (and most of those cases can be avoided with a modicum of rewording or syntax shift).
2) A sentence that requires both a colon and a semicolon (or, in general, any combination of two or more of both/either of those) is too long and should be reworked.

*puts away grammar swastika*

1) I know.    But Chicago MLA is generally what's used in publishing.
2) I think that sentence is cumbersome and should be reworked anyway.

On the first comma, Elements of Style says, "Place a comma before a conjunction introducing an independent clause." Since there isn't a specific subject (He for example) before "was a..." then there shouldn't be one, right?

Exactly.  A lot of people see "and" and immediately think there should be a comma before it, because they were taught to always put a comma before or, but, and.  The distinction is that it's to separate two sentences joined by one of those three-sometimes so, as well.

Then Elements of Style says, "Do not join independent clauses with a comma. If two or more clauses grammatically complete and not joined by a conjunction are to form a single compound sentence, the proper mark of punctuation is a semicolon."  None of the items after the colon are true independent clauses, yet there they are--two semicolons. Yet, in this sentence, it rings true to me.

For the most part, yes, you use a semicolon in place of the comma/conjunction, but in this case, the semicolons are used for a list where there are parts to each section that use commas.  It's to separate the elements that stay together, like "brighter, better-equipped halls" because otherwise, it's difficult to tell. 

And looking back, it's actually in the book as "a strong emphasis on vocational training education and counseling"? Because there really should be a comma in that list somewhere.

Elements of Style by Strunk and White?  That's a very dry book, and even though it's well written, it's not always completely understandable--the explanations could be plainer.

[Shecky]

I've always preferred MLA.

[Quantus]

Id hazard a try, but I learned to read via Hooked on Phonics and a bunch of Tom Swift novels, so Grammar is all but foreign to me.  For that matter, can anyone tell me the actual usage of a semicolon?  The best Ive ever gotten is that is is halfway between a Comma and a Period.  Which is a rather useless explanation, when you think about it 

[Shecky]

At its most fundamental, a semicolon means that what follows, although a complete thought (i.e., sentence) in and of itself, is tied pretty strongly to the thought preceding it. But it's not just an elucidation of that preceding thought, which would take a colon (e.g., "He only feared one thing: fear itself."), and it's a little more separated from that thought than a comma would indicate. It's not just a continuation; it's sort of a whole thought that is linked to it.

[Starbeam]

Yeah, what ^ he said. 

[black_hawk_sam]

^
^ Yeah, what they said.

[meg_evonne]

At its most fundamental, a semicolon means that what follows, although a complete thought (i.e., sentence) in and of itself, is tied pretty strongly to the thought preceding it. But it's not just an elucidation of that preceding thought, which would take a colon (e.g., "He only feared one thing: fear itself."), and it's a little more separated from that thought than a comma would indicate. It's not just a continuation; it's sort of a whole thought that is linked to it.

OK, this is now cut and pasted into my writing advice quotes.  Shecky now has a file on my computer and "the elucidation of that preceding thought" is added to my list of grammar rules.  This also explains several additional lines from Rankin's book that I also underlined to examine.

To be honest, the MLA intimidates me. Heck, I had to go take a linguistics class (as a 55 year old) in order to understand the terminology in E/S. Proudly, I aced it, but the dang class ended before it reached punctuation, and I never found time to take the next. I tried the internet sources, but most of it is simplistic at best.

Bottom line, whatever I've learned, I still have to USE it. I'm better, but I'm still too lazy or too discombobulated to pay attention or usually too tired to correct properly. *sigh* Looking at this sentence, I know it's not right either. Ah well...

As to the call to rewrite the sentence, what isn't known in this discussion thread is that Rankin uses it in a descriptive section where the 'traditional' means were already used. It was probably chosen to impart info with speed, while not emphasizing it via additional shorter sentences. It is easily understandable to the reader.  Therefore, as communication--it works.